387
Skill checks
(media.piefed.world)
(in D&D at least)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2025
387 points (100.0% liked)
RPGMemes
13526 readers
336 users here now
Humor, jokes, memes about TTRPGs
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
D&D has all the money in the entire hobby, basically, and they still make terrible design decisions like this.
Rolling a nat 20 and getting a crit is the jackpot of d&d mechanics. Don't design a system where sometimes you hit the jackpot but don't win anything. That's an objectively bad choice to make.
I 90% agree. I think most of the opposition to this comes from people exhausted with habitual boundary-pushers who think that a nat 20 means they can get away with defying the laws of reality.
Like, no, a nat20 persuasion does not convince the merchant to give you half his stock and all the money in the register... He would go broke and he's got a family to support, along with his own survival that your nat20 does not also convince him to stop caring about.
But at the end of the day, a lot of GMs who are sick of that need to be sent the dictionary page for the word "no." The occasional use of it really does improve the quality of the game, and I'm sure plenty of players will appreciate not letting aforementioned boundry pushers continue to waste time on impossible pursuits that do nothing to move the game forward.
I've seen this easily solved by assuming the 20 succeedes but the DM decides how exactly.
"Okay. The dragon loves you know. They realize you have their old lover's eyes. You remember this too. Old tales in your family that you thought were a joke. You are apparently related. And they do love you now."
If you can't trust your players to act like adults and show some basic maturity. That's a different issue.
This is also a great way to handle it; malicious compliance/monkey paw. Makes for some humorous moments.
And yeah, if a player is constantly having to be told no, a talk may need to be had, and if it can't be resolved, they probably need to go. It's also a reason why Session 0's are so important; talking out what's expected of the campaign both on the part of the players and what the GM has in mind.
Having that 1 player being stalked by a horny dragon for the rest of the game, just in case.
D&D is that way, though. Every time you see a natural 20 for anything that isn't an attack does not automatically succeed unless people are using homegrown, which they often are.
You need to qualify this statement with what you believe should happen on a nat 20.
Consistency.
My point is that setting up the expectation of a moment of triumph and then diluting it with exceptions is going to create moments of disappointment at the table.
If a nat 20 is going to be a big win it should always be a big win. That's so intuitively true that most people just play that way despite the rules.
Well DnD consistently doesn't have criticals outside of attack rolls and death saves.
Like the person you replied to asked, what would you even expect to happen on an ability crit? If the DM only lets you roll on things that would be possible for you, then you would succeed on a 20 anyway. If the DM lets you roll on impossible things, then you have a 5% of doing the impossible. Neither option is good.
I absolutely let a 20 or 1 have extra effect whenever it makes sense and feels right. But having it be a core rule would be a PITA.
Not to mention that it would make skill checks even more driven by randomness, which is already a problem.
Extra information, owed a favour, make a friend, get a small reward, get a clue to a larger reward, impress someone important, uncover a secret, get forewarning of a danger, hinder a rival, gain advantage on something, opponent is exhausted/confused/embarrassed and must pass a saving throw to act...
Skill check crits would be just like combat crits except there's way more scope for fictional as well as mechanical benefits.
That's still not clear what you mean, all of those things are typically the results of a success. Do you mean nat 20 should always succeed? Do you mean nat 20 should always be a success with extra benefits? Do you mean nat 20 should always give you a side benefit even if it fails? You need to be more clear.
I don't mean that it's ultra rare, just that it serves the same function as a jackpot - it's the best possible outcome, the thing you're always hoping will happen when you scratch the ticket, press the button or roll the dice.
It's your chance to have that YOU WIN BIG moment. Setting up that mechanic and then creating situations where it doesn't apply is intentionally designing disappointment.
I disagree that 1% chance is a jackpot but 5% isn't. I'm using jackpot as an analogy for the emotional impact of a rarer, higher tier win mechanic - I don't think specifying a number is useful here. That feeling can happen with a range of different rarities.
I'm not following your point about nat 1s, free gimmes or supply and demand.
I think we're using very different ideas of game design. Are you using good design in the sense of like "tactically balanced"? I think of good game design as setting up and meeting player expectations for fun while minimizing frustration.
The game sets up rolling 20 and critting as a win big moment. To occasionally then deny players that fails to meet expectations and creates disappointment. That's why I think it's bad design. And why most people don't play it as written.
Elden ring absolutely does meet player expectations - challenge is the expectation of the souls-like genre.
I don't disagree with any of this but I'm not talking about how the win should look in the fiction.
It's just that when you roll a crit but don't get a crit, most players will get extra disappointed. That's a fact of the human experience that no rules text will ever change.
Good design accounts for the reality of how people actually use a thing.
FWIW, inconsistency is one of the things I hate the most about the game design in Elden Ring. It does not properly communicate the actual impact of stat upgrades at different levels (e.g. 39-40 vigor is a significantly higher jump than 40-41 vigor) and enemies will have resistances or weaknesses to different damage types that often feel arbitrary/poorly communicated (e.g. the Magma Wyrm, a creature that breathes fire, is more resistant to fire than the Fire Giant; Borealis, an icy dragon that breathes ice, is nearly as resistant to fire as the Fire Giant; Hero of Zamor, an icy man that shoots ice, is weak to fire).
Elden Ring's design is essentially a form of trial and error that often punishes you for choosing poorly, relying instead on metagame knowledge (patterns from previous Souls games, online discourse) to patch up its shortcomings. Fun as all hell when you know what to do, but its systems are incredibly arcane for newcomers.
Woah wait now. Sure people misuse things but designing with that in mind always produces a better thing than ignoring reality. A gun with a safety is a objectively a better design than a gun with no safety, even if the both have a manual that says not to play with the trigger and keep away from kids.
The game trains you to expect a dopamine reward when you roll a 20. A game that consistently meets the expectations it creates would be a better game.
If you make like five skill checks per game, yes it is rare and it's way more fun to treat it like a crit success. It's not a job, it's a weekend activity that is supposed to bring joy.
I'm not speaking to how the designers intended, but at the end of the day if a 20 is a crit success on skill checks it is a jackpot mechanic. You could go months without getting one in game and when it happens it's absolutely like hitting the jackpot
I think we're talking past each other here-- everyone is saying it SHOULD be a rule and everyone they know does it anyway so it's "part of DND".
It's like stacking +4 cards in uno. Might not be in the rules, but everyone knows to do it.